posted 03-19-2014 03:20 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by dom:
If Putin really wants to return Russia (and us) to some fantasy 'golden era' similar to the Cold War, international space co-operation involving Russia will come to an end with the ISS...

---

posted 03-19-2014 04:04 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
...will Russian efforts be redirected to putting cosmonauts on the Moon?

---

Russia has said it relies on foreign funds to launch its Soyuz and Progress missions. Roscosmos needs U.S., European or privately-sourced ("space tourist") funds to keep its human spaceflight program flying.

If the U.S. stays the course and develops a commercial crew ability, then it is reasonable to assume that, in addition to the U.S. withdrawing its funds from Russia, so will ESA and other ISS partners in favor of the U.S.-based option.

Space Adventures, the only company licensed to fly paying passengers on the Soyuz, already has a partnership with Boeing for use of its CST-100 (and one could assume would approach SpaceX or Sierra Nevada for the same).

So unless Russia devotes significantly more funds to its space program, there could come a day in the not too distant future when Russia starts paying the U.S. (or U.S. companies) to launch its crew members to the space station.

posted 03-19-2014 05:02 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by p51:
Make no mistake, we've always been in an odd military footing against Russia, ever since World War II in 1945. In fact, we're probably in a similar position than we were while we were all fighting. We spy on them, they spy on us, and all the while we officially say we're friends.

---

I think I've said this before elsewhere, but wasn't it Kissinger who said, "We don't have friends but only interests."

posted 03-19-2014 06:02 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
I think I've said this before elsewhere, but wasn't it Kissinger who said, "We don't have friends but only interests."

---

posted 03-19-2014 11:32 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
I think I've said this before elsewhere, but wasn't it Kissinger who said, "We don't have friends but only interests."

---

While I am certainly not a fan of Putin, and see shades of the Sudeten Germans in this whole maneuver, it should be recognized that the West did essentially the same thing in Kosovo.

posted 03-20-2014 06:43 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
An odd thought - if cooperation with the US for the ISS ends and the station has to be closed, will Russian efforts be redirected to putting cosmonauts on the Moon?

---

posted 03-21-2014 06:24 AM               

Who wants the cold war? US president Obama and/or Russian president Putin? In reality none of them. US and Russia need each other in the new post-cold war world. Their common interests are to fight the terrorism and organized crime and not to allow the WMD to come into the wrong hands. That's absolutely crucial and both superpowers will stick to it.

Mass media unfortunately do not play a positive role in this conflict — as in any other. Did in the mainstream media appear the information that the US have the military base in southern Russia? It is the bridge (not the only one of course) for the supplies for the US contingent in Afghanistan. And it's for the benefit of both US and Russia.

Every politician is drumming on sanctions against Russia. And the result? In reality no sanctions worth of mentioning. The trade is the topic of the day.

posted 03-21-2014 08:29 AM               

These sanctions are going to take some time to implement. I have no illusions that they will not bring the Russians to their knees on this issue any more than not send athletes to the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow forced the Russians to withdraw from Afghanistan. But this is just the beginning of those sanctions.

posted 03-21-2014 09:18 AM               

As it stands now, the conflict has not had an effect on the International Space Station (ISS). Russia and the U.S. continue to work together to support the orbiting outpost, and Soyuz TMA-12M is set to launch on March 25 with NASA astronaut Steve Swanson aboard.

Russian cosmonauts continue to train in at Johnson Space Center, and American astronauts continue to train at Star City.

posted 04-02-2014 01:29 PM               

Given Russia's ongoing violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, until further notice, the U.S. Government has determined that all NASA contacts with Russian Government representatives are suspended, unless the activity has been specifically excepted. This suspension includes NASA travel to Russia and visits by Russian Government representatives to NASA facilities, bilateral meetings, email, and teleconferences or videoconferences. At the present time, only operational International Space Station activities have been excepted. In addition, multilateral meetings held outside of Russia that may include Russian participation are not precluded under the present guidance.

posted 04-02-2014 07:12 PM               

Statement regarding suspension of some NASA activities with Russian Government representatives

Given Russia's ongoing violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, NASA is suspending the majority of its ongoing engagements with the Russian Federation. NASA and Roscosmos will, however, continue to work together to maintain safe and continuous operation of the International Space Station.

NASA is laser focused on a plan to return human spaceflight launches to American soil, and end our reliance on Russia to get into space. This has been a top priority of the Obama Administration's for the past five years, and had our plan been fully funded, we would have returned American human spaceflight launches – and the jobs they support – back to the United States next year.

With the reduced level of funding approved by Congress, we're now looking at launching from U.S. soil in 2017. The choice here is between fully funding the plan to bring space launches back to America or continuing to send millions of dollars to the Russians. It's that simple.

The Obama Administration chooses to invest in America – and we are hopeful that Congress will do the same.

posted 04-03-2014 01:03 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by p51:
Seems to me that this statement has very little teeth.

---

[It] reflects a broad State Department directive to multiple federal agencies that have regular contact with the Russian government. In NASA's case, the space station represents the bulk of the agency's dealings with Russia and the exemption presumably means business as usual.

But the space agency has multiple, less-visible cooperative efforts in space science, aeronautics and other areas, and the potential impacts on those remain to be seen.

"Apparently, this is happening in all federal agencies," said John Logsdon, professor emeritus of political science and international affairs at George Washington University. "So it's consistent with the across-government thing."

posted 04-03-2014 06:36 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by capoetc:
Maybe if we had selected a contractor and spent $1.5B with them, we might be closer to having a real capability.

---

SpaceX plans to launch its first manned flight test (from Pad 39A) next year. Boeing and Sierra Nevada plan their first flight tests (albeit unmanned) the following year. All three are on, or ahead of schedule to deliver a vehicle for NASA astronauts to fly to the space station in 2017.

NASA previously invested $922 million in a cost-plus contract to develop the X-33, and despite an additional $357 million in private funds, Lockheed did not come close to flight testing the vehicle, let alone completing an engineering test article. Some who worked on that program have suggested the cost-plus contract may have been part of the problem. (Though to be fair, there were significant technical hurdles imposed on the program as well.)

posted 04-03-2014 08:28 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
All three are on, or ahead of schedule to deliver a vehicle for NASA astronauts to fly to the space station in 2017.

No, we are where are we are today because Congress knowingly underfunded the program.

---

posted 04-03-2014 08:35 PM               

If the U.S. had it's own crew transportation in place right now, what difference would it make in the current situation? The explanations we have been given are that both parties a reliant on each other for ISS support.

Certainly, Russia would have less leverage, and the American public (or at least those who pay attention/care) would not have the heartburn over sending hundreds of millions of dollars to Russia in what is increasingly becoming a blackmail scenario.

But without the access situation hanging over our heads, wouldn't we still be in a co-dependent relationship? Neither side could just close the hatches and operate their respective sides on their own.

posted 04-03-2014 08:42 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by 328KF:
It's no different...

---

posted 04-03-2014 09:03 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by 328KF:
If the U.S. had it's own crew transportation in place right now, what difference would it make in the current situation?

---

I don't see why anyone would be experiencing heartburn from astronauts flying on the Soyuz (especially today, 13 years on). It's a taxi that takes our crew members to work and brings them back home. Sure, we'd like to buy our own car and park it in our own garage, but until that's an option, it is ensuring continuous operation of the space station. The benefits outweigh the costs.

As for Congress, they certainly don't care. Oh sure, they posture before the cameras and pander to their constituents, but if it really bothered them that NASA astronauts were flying on Soyuz then there would be absolutely no argument now over fully-funding commercial crew. In fact, if it was really giving them heartburn, they would be asking if they could expedite the process by providing even more than the budget requests, but has a single congressperson done that?

posted 04-03-2014 10:00 PM               

Our folks should be going to space on U.S. spacecraft for the following reasons:

1. National pride and prestige - we have nearly always been, and should continue to be the world leader in manned spaceflight.

2. The U.S. should never be, and should never have been put in, a situation where we are held hostage by another country to ever-increasing monetary cost for transporting our astronauts to and from any destination. I have yet to see a justification for the amount of U.S. taxpayer money being taken by the Russians for their "services."

3. Contrary to some current opinion, and even some past history, there is no guarantee that political situations on the planet will not jeopardize ongoing joint projects in space. There is simply nothing "magical" about the ISS which prevents anyone from pulling the plug at any given time, and therefore jeopardizing another participant's investment.

4. Given Putin's recent irrational actions (subject to one's point of view, of course) there is nothing to suggest that he would not do something equally irrational regarding space operations. This is the one "wild card" that puts the delicate co-dependent balance in danger.

5. I feel reasonably confident after seeing many interviews and reading many books, that most if not all U.S. astronauts would rather not spend long months away from home to train in Russia, learn a difficult language, and be isolated from their home culture. Including the time on ISS, this becomes a multi-year commitment.

But one has to wonder, if we never had this stopgap, wouldn't we have planned and funded accordingly? Obviously, the answer is yes. We could have never allowed any gap in assured access to the ISS, and our government would have responded accordingly.

It is what it is for now, but I really do hope that some lawmakers are spending less time trying to get re-elected and are tuning into the reality of the current situation.

posted 04-04-2014 09:25 AM               

Out of curiosity, does anyone know if any companies, individuals, or entities have yet stepped up to the plate to reserve trips into space for themselves or their own employees with any of the current 3 contractors (Boeing/SpaceX/Sierra Nevada)? As I understand it, that is one of the primary purposes for multiple contractors doing basically the same thing: to create a new manned-spaceflight marketplace.

If I were a betting man, I would make the following prediction:

1. Before long (perhaps this fall, or it may take a little longer) a single contractor will be chosen to continue to receive NASA money to develop a capability to launch NASA astronauts into earth orbit.

2. The first manned flight will not occur in 2017, and probably not in 2018 either.

posted 04-04-2014 10:22 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by capoetc:
None of this changes the fact that $1.5B sent to a single contractor would be more than $1.5B spread among multiple contractors.

---

quote:

---

Out of curiosity, does anyone know if any companies, individuals, or entities have yet stepped up to the plate to reserve trips into space...

---

Sierra Nevada has partnered with ESA and DLR to "define missions outside the Dream Chaser's primary mission of ferrying U.S. and partner nation astronauts to low-Earth orbit."

SpaceX has already announced plans for a first flight test with its own non-NASA crew (see below).

quote:

---

As I understand it, that is one of the primary purposes for multiple contractors...

---

quote:

---

Before long (perhaps this fall, or it may take a little longer) a single contractor will be chosen...

---

quote:

---

The first manned flight will not occur in 2017, and probably not in 2018 either.

---

posted 04-04-2014 04:04 PM               

Incidentally, despite the obstacles faced by Lockheed Martin in developing a number of independent, completely new technologies for the X-33, including fully composite oxygen and hydrogen tanks (which L-M engineers strongly advised against, and which L-M has subsequently successfully demonstrated), here was the progress at the time of cancellation:

Prototype construction: Mostly assembled, with approximately 96% of the parts completed

Launch facility: 100% complete

NASA's insistence upon using all-composite materials for the LO2 and LH2 tanks doomed the project, as the engineers had warned early on. Here is a good article that details the history and ultimate demise of the 1/3-scale X-33 technology demonstrator.

I was aware of the August 2014 (maybe) deadline to announce which companies will continue to receive NASA funding for commercial crew -- my point was, I predict it will be down-selected to one contractor as the funding will likely be insufficient to support 2 or more (one could say that has been the case all along -- these are tough times for discretionary spending programs).

What do I base my assertion on that commercial crew will not fly manned in 2017? History. Manned spaceflight is hard, and I am predicting there will be challenges heretofore unforeseen that slide the target date to the right.

I hope I am wrong. I hope KSC turns into something like Mos Eisley, the Star Wars spaceport on Tatooine. I simply have doubts that enough Obi-Wans (besides NASA) will show up to pay for passage on the Millennium Falcon.

posted 04-04-2014 04:15 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by capoetc:
...but are you really comparing commercial crew to the X-33 SSTO project?

---

(As an aside, reports vary about the X-33's final state; the cited article suggests it was only 40 percent assembled when canceled; Wikipedia states 85 percent.)

posted 04-07-2014 03:51 PM               

However, is there a red line in this arrangement? Is there a point beyond which the US will reconsider its position in this matter? I do not know.